EU shifts to second phase. It seemed so far away - the European Commission's paper on services - advocating a significant reduction in Community funding to agriculture and the subsequent eradication of the CAP (common agricultural policy)! We could even consider this provocation as positive, because it has led to a series of studies, analyses and reflections on the importance of agriculture in Europe, together with a huge level of participation from all the different political forces and bodies which, perhaps, had never really thought in detail about this question. The basic principle appears to have been accepted: European agriculture is indispensable for reasons linked to food, ecology, health and history, and for reasons that are international (helping to combat hunger in the world) and strategic (a high level of food self-sufficiency is a condition underpinning political autonomy).
Given that the principle of consensus has been accepted, the EU is shifting to the second phase: the definition of the future CAP, minus certain excesses and in line with new demands - not only those of Europe but also of the world. This phase is just as essential and difficult as the first phase, given the huge vested interests at stake. By giving its approval to the Lyon report last week, the European Parliament has taken the initiative in moving forward on two fronts: keeping a strong CAP funded fairly at a European level, and far-reaching reform of the way the policy functions (EUROPE 10177). The European Commission will present its reform proposals in November, which will have absolutely no connection to the draft paper mentioned above that will be definitively dead and buried (but we have to remain alert: in certain quarters, the aim of abolishing European funding for the CAP still persists). It will then be up to the Council to express itself in this connection.
Parliament's position. Without wishing to return to the debate and contents of Mr George Lyon's report (a British parliamentarian, an important detail), a few aspects on the position of the EP should be underlined:
- Parliament is not just calling for agriculture to be maintained, it is also advocating initiatives aiming to attract young people by creating conditions that are favourable to both funding and investment. Jobs in agriculture should not be reduced, they should be increased;
- the position of the EP on the budgetary aspect is clear: CAP funding should be safeguarded over the new financial programming period (which begins in 2014) and the flexibility mechanism should allow for funding that has not been used to be postponed until the following year;
- funding direct aid through the Community budget is crucial if farmers being paid according to the wealth of the country to which they belong is to be avoided and to guarantee that farming activity is harmoniously distributed throughout Community territory. Current disparities between the levels of funding of the different member states must be progressively reduced, with a view to eradicating them entirely;
- producers' bargaining power must be increased faced with the other actors in the food chain, particularly with regard to the big supermarkets. Current discrepancies between production and consumer prices are excessive and sometimes absurd. Price transparency must be enhanced;
- in areas where Europe is already in the avant-garde - the link between agricultural production and environmental and climate protection, respect for animals - Europe must strengthen its demands, especially on imports;
- highlighting product quality and the protection of traditional designations is justified not only because it seeks to protect farmers but also because of the increasing importance citizens quite rightly attach to the quality of food. This area includes many closely related aspects, which involve the strengthening of geographical indications of origin.
Impact on international trade. The last three points are closely linked to international trade and imports from third countries. Parliament's paper stipulates that the EU put an end to export refunds but at the same time demands that products from third countries (in the countries of origin) respect similar requirements as those imposed on Community producers, and that product traceability be improved to enable consumers to make informed choices. The Lyon report did not go into any detail with regard to this problem and on which the MEPs themselves sometimes have differing opinions. Tomorrow, this column will return to some of the most sensitive aspects involved in relations with third countries, the application of WTO rules and the final phase of the Doha round.
(F.R./transl.fl)